R v Ferris-Bromley - [2016] NZHC 772

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND PALMERSTON NORTH REGISTRY

CRI-2015-054-794 [2016] NZHC 772

THE QUEEN

v

JESSE JOHN FERRIS-BROMLEY

Hearing: 22 April 2016

Counsel:

B D Vanderkolk and E M FitzHerbert for Crown
R B Crowley and L A Scott for Defendant

Sentence:

22 April 2016

SENTENCING NOTES OF CLIFFORD J

Introduction

[1] Mr Ferris-Bromley, you appear for sentencing today having pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of Virginia Rose Ford on 13 March 2015 at Palmerston North. That offence carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. You have also pleaded guilty to two charges of causing Ms Ford grievous bodily harm with intent to injure, in the period leading up to her death. The maximum penalty for each of those two charges is seven years’ imprisonment.

[2] Mr Ferris-Bromley, today you are 23 years old. At the date of her death, Ms Ford was only 20 years old. At the time you were both students at Massey University, living together in a flat. You had been in a relationship for approximately two years. It is now clear that you sought to dominate and control Ms Ford during
that relationship. You had, particularly in the period leading up to her death, become

R v FERRIS-BROMLEY [2016] NZHC 772 [22 April 2016]

increasingly violent to her. That violence culminated on 13 March last year. Ms

Ford died from a beating you gave her that day.

[3] You were originally charged with her murder. The Crown subsequently concluded that, in all the circumstances, a charge of manslaughter should be laid in replacement for that charge of murder. You pleaded guilty to manslaughter, and to the two grievous bodily harm charges, at that point.

[4] I say at the outset of these sentencing remarks that the events which have brought you and your family, and Ms Ford, her family and friends, to this courtroom today are a tragedy for all concerned.

[5] Pauline and John Ford have lost their only daughter in horrible circumstances. The fact of that loss, and those circumstances, will be with them forever. It is a parent’s greatest fear that they might have to bury their child. How much worse that must be when that death has been a violent and senseless one. Ms Ford’s wider family has also lost a precious family member. It is my job to sentence Mr Ferris-Bromley today according to law. The law does the best it can to respond to human tragedies, such as this. But we all know the law cannot do that in a way that adequately addresses the sadness and harm such events cause.

[6] I also acknowledge the tragedy for Mr Ferris-Bromley’s family. But, at least, Mr Ferris-Bromley, your family still have you: they have said they will support you. You are lucky to have that support. With it, you may be able to address the factors in your life and character that led you to these awful acts of violence.

Approach to sentencing

[7] In order to decide…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Ferris-Bromley

Details

AGLC: R v Ferris-Bromley [2016] NZHC 772
Case: [2016] NZHC 772
Decision Date: 22 April 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Ferris-Bromley concerns the sentencing of Jesse John Ferris-Bromley for the manslaughter of Virginia Rose Ford, along with two counts of causing grievous bodily harm with intent to injure. The court had to determine the appropriate sentence considering the severity of the crimes, the circumstances, and mitigating factors such as the defendant's remorse and lack of prior criminal record. The defendant, a former student at Massey University in Palmerston North, had a controlling relationship with the victim, which escalated into violence leading to her death on March 13, 2015.

The legal issues before the court involved setting a starting point for the sentence based on the nature and severity of the crimes, adjusting that starting point based on personal factors of the defendant, and applying a discount for the defendant's guilty plea and remorse. The court considered various factors, including the extreme violence, the vulnerable state of the victim, and the defendant's participation in a restorative justice conference. The court also assessed whether mitigating factors such as the defendant's age, lack of prior criminal history, and genuine remorse warranted any reduction in the sentence.

The court decided on an 11-year starting point for the manslaughter charge, considering the severity and unprovoked nature of the violence. It applied a six-month reduction for the defendant's participation in the restorative justice process and a 25% reduction for the guilty plea, resulting in an eight-year imprisonment sentence. The court also imposed concurrent two-year sentences for the grievous bodily harm charges, with a minimum term of 50% of the eight-year sentence to be served. The court emphasized the tragic nature of the crime and the hope for the defendant to make amends for his actions.

Orders